My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC24395
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC24395
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:24:06 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:55:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
7/21/1994
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO PROBLEM NOTED CONTAINED IN INSPECTION REPORT FORM OMLR DATED JULY 14 1994 OA OC OVERSIGH
From
CRIPPLE CREEK & VICTOR GOLD MINING CO
To
DMG
Inspection Date
7/14/1994
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />reported by Golder in the daily reports, as will the resolution including the appropriate corrective <br />action. <br />Again, all field supervisory personnel of Bateman Engineering, Inc. are also authorized to stop <br />any construction activities, just as is Golder, if a potential problem is observed. Similazly, <br />certain CC&V individuals are authorized to direct cessation of construction activities. At present <br />these individuals are Mr. James Komadina and Mr. John Hazdaway. <br />Any subcontractors to Ames Construction are subject to the same line of authority and to the <br />same directives by Bateman, Golder, or CC&V to halt operations and to remediate if activities <br />do not meet approved specifications or incompatibility with approved design is identified. <br />Circumstances Surrounding Construction of Finer Drain on July 14. 1994 (#21: <br />The site in question is a shallow topographic valley area where no water flow has been observed <br />but which has been damp after the heavy rains experienced toward the onset of soil removal <br />activities. Golder Associates had inspected, approved, and documented the excavation of the <br />secondary underdrain channel for rock backfill. Ames Construction had been directed to backfill <br />the channel with material that had been produced for underdrain pipe backfill, a clean poorly <br />graded gravel. This procedure is over and above the requirements for french drain rock finger <br />drains in view of the fact that no water was seen flowing in the bedrock. However, CC&V had <br />discussed the fact that it intended to construct gravel finger drains in such locations with the <br />OMLR and is committed to doing so. <br />Golder and Bateman had, prior to the OMLR inspector arriving on the site, identified that <br />material placed in the upper 50 feet (approximately) of the leak detection material trench was <br />inferior and had halted placement in prepazation for removal of that material and placement of <br />"cleaner" material. Then, until the unsuitable material was removed, Ames was filling the lower <br />section of the drain with the suitable material, At this time, the principle Golder Associates <br />inspector was asked to make arrangements for a back hoe to excavate the remainder of the <br />trench at the base of the toe fill berm as arranged with the OMLR inspector and, as that <br />occurred, the Golder senior engineer and CC&V observed, with the inspector, afront-end load <br />that also appeared inferior. Golder and CC&V immediately informed the Ames construction <br />foreman, who was also observing the work, that the additional material that appeared inferior <br />not be placed and that precautions be taken to avoid use in the future. As Golder and CC&V <br />returned after the instructions were given to Ames, the principal Golder inspector returned and <br />was briefed. <br />It should be noted that all material involved met the approved specification for underdrain pipe <br />bedding material, including that material which was removed. Therefore, all the material was <br />permeable. We might also note that the trench design was for four (4) feet and the trench width <br />being filled was five (5) feet, and thus excess material was added. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.